Sunday, May 31, 2009

Disgust, Authority: Conservatives, Liberals

I'll tell you, as much as I find myself immersed in these controversies and battles of the "culture wars," I still couldn't tell you what a "conservative" or a "liberal" is. You read definitions but in reality people don't conform to them well.

A couple of years ago, John Dean came out with a book where he had gone back to the social-psychological research following World War II, an influential book by Adorno called The Authoritarian Personality. Dean's observation was that the conservatives typified by the Bush administration were authoritarians, that that was their defining quality.

It seems interesting to me that you can't tell what a person's political inclinations are by looking at them. Conservatives don't really dress more conservatively than liberals, or have neater haircuts, or walk straighter, or anything. Examples: Ted Nugent, Alice Cooper... A lot of times you are shocked to be talking to someone and discover their beliefs.

Somehow Americans line up on two ends of the field. We end up with two political parties, or at least two major ones, opposed to each other, but from a certain perspective it is hard sometimes to see the core philosophy that holds each team together and guides their choices. I think that's partly because both sides are fighting to win, and so they expend effort on targeting the opposition, rather than addressing the issues.

Some psychologists are finding personality differences between conservatives and liberals. The Nicholas Kristof had a story in the NYT yesterday:

If you want to tell whether someone is conservative or liberal, what are a couple of completely nonpolitical questions that will give a good clue?

How’s this: Would you be willing to slap your father in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit?

And, second: Does it disgust you to touch the faucet in a public restroom?

Studies suggest that conservatives are more often distressed by actions that seem disrespectful of authority, such as slapping Dad. Liberals don’t worry as long as Dad has given permission.

Likewise, conservatives are more likely than liberals to sense contamination or perceive disgust. People who would be disgusted to find that they had accidentally sipped from an acquaintance’s drink are more likely to identify as conservatives.

I hate that headline. It could have said, "Do Other People Disgust you? If So, You're a Conservative." Oh well, I guess we know what kind of headline writer they have.

Skipping down ...

One of the main divides between left and right is the dependence on different moral values. For liberals, morality derives mostly from fairness and prevention of harm. For conservatives, morality also involves upholding authority and loyalty — and revulsion at disgust.

Some evolutionary psychologists believe that disgust emerged as a protective mechanism against health risks, like feces, spoiled food or corpses. Later, many societies came to apply the same emotion to social “threats.” Humans appear to be the only species that registers disgust, which is why a dog will wag its tail in puzzlement when its horrified owner yanks it back from eating excrement.

Psychologists have developed a “disgust scale” based on how queasy people would be in 27 situations, such as stepping barefoot on an earthworm or smelling urine in a tunnel. Conservatives systematically register more disgust than liberals. (To see how you weigh factors in moral decisions, take the tests at www.yourmorals.org.)

There was some debate in the field a few years back about the basic emotions, and disgust got added to the list. Most emotions are blends of the basic ones, and the basic ones are distinct -- disgust earned its place.

I went to a Citizens for Responsible Whatever meeting once where they started out by showing videos of bizarre guys prancing around in tu-tus and acting outlandish and weird. The whole point was to induce a feeling of disgust for gay people, there was no other reason to show that. Once that emotion is established, negative stereotypes are consistent with it, and it appears to make sense to endorse policies that that are detrimental to gays. The first step is to elicit disgust, and everything else follows from that.

I'm afraid it comes down to this:

“Minds are very hard things to open, and the best way to open the mind is through the heart,” Professor Haidt says. “Our minds were not designed by evolution to discover the truth; they were designed to play social games.”

The amazing thing is that those social games ratchet us upward toward truth. There is profit in truth, that is, when someone conveys accurate information to another then the other can coordinate activities with them, to the benefit of both -- it's just a social game. Over centuries and millenia the information has become ever more refined, with the result being technological advances and advances in scientific knowledge and even philosophy and the arts. Logic has been discovered and studied, but there is no evidence that it plays any important part in human cognition.

Scott Roeder Says: May 19th, 2007 at 4:34 pm Bleass everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp.Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn’t seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller.

And more disgust, the words of Randall Terry, a founder of Operation Rescue:

"George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name: murder... Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches."

Which "most effective...action" are you talking about, Mr. Terry, murder while serving your community in your church?

Which God are you speaking of Mr. Terry, your own? Don't we all have the right as Americans to follow the God of our own choosing? Are your words so uninspiring that you and your followers have to resort to jihad to make your point?

Regarding the conservative/liberal thing....I don't think that the slapping dad thing has anything to do with not wanting to slap an authority figure. I bet you'd get the same response if you asked them whether they'd slap their best friend. Besides -- there's no good reason to slap someone in a skit. A slap can easily be faked by both parties.

Most Americans, liberal or conservatives are disgusted by the antics of gays, such as are seen at a typical gay "pride" parade or their annual S&M festival in San Francisco.

Last night, at the MTV awards, there was a display of the type of behavior that goes along with a society that embraces homosexuality:

"Sacha Baron Cohen flew in on a wire, hanging above the audience.

Dressed as flamboyant character "Bruno" in a pair of feathery white wings and his rear end mostly exposed, the comedian crashed into an overhead obstacle and was lowered headfirst into the lap of Eminem, his bare hindquarters in the rapper's face.

"Is the real Slim Shady about to stand up?" chirped Baron Cohen.

Eminem seemed visibly upset by the encounter, and members of his entourage roughly removed Baron Cohen as the rapper struggled to get out.

Free of the scene, Eminem stormed out with his entourage in tow — and cameras rolling — and hit the exits.

Baron Cohen's descent to the audience was included in rehearsals, but Eminem — who performed Sunday night — didn't take part in that piece of the run-through. The rapper stormed off, and he was not seen or heard from again."

"When Vice President Dick Cheney appeared at the National Press Club to participate in the Gerald Ford Journalism prizes today, he warmly remembered his old boss, the late President Ford, as someone only truly appreciated by history. Ford was, Cheney said, "Unafraid to make the tough calls, even when they carried high political risk."

Although Cheney focused most of remarks on national security issues, it was his very personal answer to a question on gay marriage that broke new ground.

"I think freedom means freedom for everyone."

"As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, something that we've lived with for a long time in our family.

"I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

"LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (June 1) - A new soldier helping to attract others to the military was shot and killed outside an Army recruiting office Monday and a second soldier was wounded, and a suspect was arrested, police said.

A man inside a black vehicle pulled up outside the Army-Navy recruiting office in west Little Rock and opened fire about 10:30 a.m., said police Lt. Terry Hastings.

The two soldiers were outside the office when they were shot.

They were taken to a hospital, where one died.

The vehicle was stopped on Interstate 630 a short time later and a suspect was taken into custody.

Hastings said the suspect pulled over and surrendered without incident.

Anon can't be bothered with facts; spin is Anon's primary reason for commenting here day after day.

For those who are interested, here are some facts as reported by the Associated Press this morning:

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (June 2) - Police describe it as a killing motivated by politics and religion: A man upset with the U.S. military drove to a recruiting center and opened fire on two soldiers, fatally wounding one.

Monday's shootings are not believed to be part of a broader scheme. Instead, authorities say Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad acted on his own when he drove to a shopping center in western Little Rock and began shooting in broad daylight.

"We believe that it's associated with his disagreement over the military operations," Police Chief Stuart Thomas said...

...A police report based on an interview with the suspect says Muhammad, 23, told police he observed two soldiers in uniform, drove up to the recruiting center and began shooting.

"He saw them standing there and drove up and shot them," Lt. Terry Hastings told The Associated Press. "That's what he said."...

...Muhammad had converted to Islam at some point in his life and interviews with police show he "probably had political and religious motives for the attack," the police chief said.

Muhammad, previously known as Carlos Bledsoe, was not part of a larger group nor was his attack part of a larger conspiracy, Thomas said...

Of course it's too soon for anyone to say for sure what Muhammad's were motives in this shooting, but that doesn't stop Anon from spinning the question "if anyone blames liberal, anti-military rhetoric." No, Anon, nobody blames "liberal, anti-military rhetoric." The Police Chief appears to be blaming "disagreement over the military operations," which was based Muhammed's "political and religious motives." Many blame the recruitment of anti-American terrorists on the existence of GITMO, which has stoked Muslims' anti-American feelings and been a terrorist recruitment tool for years now.

What does Anon ask about the motives of Scott Roeder, who murdered Doctor George Tiller in church Sunday? Does Anon wonder if "conservative, anti-abortion rhetoric" is to blame for it?

Here are some facts for Anon to ponder:

WICHITA, Kan. (June 2) -- Scott Roeder's family life began unraveling more than a decade ago when he got involved with anti-government groups, and then became "very religious in an Old Testament, eye-for-an-eye way," his former wife said.

"The anti-tax stuff came first, and then it grew and grew. He became very anti-abortion," said Lindsey Roeder, who was married to Scott Roeder for 10 years but "strongly disagrees with his beliefs." He moved out in 1994, and the couple divorced in 1996. They have one son, now 22.

"He started falling apart," Lindsey Roeder told The Associated Press on Monday. "I had to protect myself and my son."...

...Roeder's brother also said he suffered from mental illness at various times in his life.

"However, none of us ever saw Scott as a person capable of or willing to take another person's life. Our deepest regrets, prayers and sympathy go out to the Tiller family during this terrible time," his brother, David, said in a statement...

...He was convicted and sentenced to two years on probation and ordered to stop associating with violent anti-government groups. But the Kansas Court of Appeals overturned his conviction in 1997, ruling that authorities seized evidence against Roeder during an illegal search of his car.

"When they let him out because of the illegal search that made him even more self-righteous. He would say, 'See, I'm right, and you're wrong,'" she said...

...Some anti-abortion activists said they were familiar with Roeder. Regina Dinwiddie, a protester in the Kansas City area, said she had picketed a Planned Parenthood clinic with Roeder. She said she was "glad" about Tiller's death.

"I wouldn't cry for him no more than I would if somebody dropped a rat and killed it," she said...

Does anybody think talk like that, a so-called pro-lifer expressing gladness about the death of a person they have a political disagreement with, might have had something to do with Roeder's motives to kill Dr. Tiller?

Robert said As much as people complain about Dick Cheney, the statement "freedom means freedom for everyone" goes a long way in my book.

I very much agree, Robert, it goes a long way. But I disagree with other portions of Cheney's statements, particularly the part where he said its OK with him if freedom for everybody ends at some state lines. Here are Dick Cheney's recent statements about gay marriage at the National Press Club: (Cheney is introduced 12 minutes into the video).

"I think freedom means freedom for everyone."

"As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay, something that we've lived with for a long time in our family.

"I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute that governs this, I don't support. I do believe that historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. I think that's the way it ought to be handled today, at the state level. Different states will make different decisions and I don't have problem with that."

Oh, and Anon, I did not say you said leftist, anti-military rhetoric was responsible for the death of the recruiter. I said you spun that question and then I answered it. To repeat my answer to your question is: No one is saying "leftist, anti-military rhetoric was responsible for the death of the recruiter." So far, those closest to the investigation say Muhammad committed this crime because of his "political and religious motives."

Religious motives, perhaps mixed in with some mental illness, are also being named by those close to Roeder as likely motives for his murder of George Tiller, a medical doctor. Dr. Tiller had just been acquitted of alleged crimes in the conduct of his women's health clinic. Dr. Tiller was a provider of legal medical services requested by women.

the response of the law, of the legislators of many states, of the voters in referenda in many parts of our country, and the history of American law enforcement agencies at local and federal level, has been extremist, in a violent, oppressive sort of way, with respect to lgbt people. Extremist rhetoric led to that offical, governmental extremism. Do you repudiate that history and those who maintained it?

Personally, I find it hard to believe that groups like FOF, AFA, FFV, FRC, PFOX, CWFA, et al are just concerned with the definition of marriage. They have a past.

Some people, like Bill Ayers, went off the rails in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

But you still have not given a single example in this century of organized groups on "the left" who have even remotely suggested killing members of the American military as a way of stopping war overseas. There was some damn foolishness 40 years ago. The "ultra-extreme left" (to the extent it even exists anymore) learned its lesson. The ultra-extreme right (and maybe not even just the "ultras") has not.

The free exchange of ideas is one thing, advocating for violence against those you oppose politically and religiously is something altogether different. You can call that "splitting hairs" if you want.

In 2007, someone identifying himself as Scott Roeder posted a message on the Web site of Operation Rescue. The Wichita-based anti-abortion group had devoted much of its effort to blocking Tiller. The posting read, in part: “Tiller is the concentration camp ‘Mengele' of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgment upon our nation.”...

...A decade ago, Roeder subscribed to the quarterly magazine, which is published in Iowa and has said "justifiable homicide" against abortion providers can be supported, Leach [Dave Leach, publisher of the magazine Prayer and Action News] said.

"Scott is not my hero in that sense; he has not inspired me to shoot an abortionist," Leach said in an e-mail. "But definitely, he will be the hero to thousands of babies who will not be slain because Scott sacrificed everything for them."

Regina Dinwiddie, a 54-year-old grandmother, said Roeder once confronted a doctor at a Planned Parenthood center, telling the physician, "Now I know what you look like."

"Scott came out and told us that he had done that, and we all said, 'Scott, you better leave or they are gonna get after you,'" Dinwiddie said. "Next thing, all these people come rushing out of the place, all worried. Scott was standing up for what he believed in."

Dinwiddie said Tiller's slaying was "absolutely" justified.

"He forfeited his life by taking the lives of innocent children," she said.

And in Iowa, Dan Holman, of the anti-abortion group Missionaries to the Preborn, told CNN that Tiller's death was something to "cheer."

"I was cheered by it, because I knew he wouldn't be killing any more babies," Holman said.

Randall Terry, an anti-abortion activist, rejected the view that fiery rhetoric against abortion doctors could incite violence. He went on to compare Dr. Tiller to a Nazi war criminal and suggest that the physician invited his death. "He was a murderer who reaped what he sowed," Mr. Terry said.

Those speakers are not simply "exchanging ideas," they are attempting to justify the murder of a law-abiding, church-going American they disagreed with on politics and religion. It seems to me if they are against abortion, they should argue their case about abortion without attempting to justify the murder of their political and religious opponents.

"a law-abiding, church-going American they disagreed with on politics and religion"

But he was more than someone they disagreed with.

He was someone who acted on his beliefs and took the lives of innocent human beings who had done no harm to him.

You object because Terry compared Tiller to a Nazi war criminal.

Leftists say the same about the Bush administration all the time.

Here's what Terry said:

"Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches."

Peaceful protest is what he called for, not violence.

Pointing out that the victim of this violence on Sunday was also a perpetrator of violence is not condoning any violence but simply pointing out where it leads.

Dr. Tiller was someone who acted on his beliefs and upheld the laws of this nation as he did so. Scott Roeder and anti-abortion activists who foment the taking of abortion providers' lives, do not. They act on their beliefs and encourage and excuse their followers to violate the laws of this land.

BTW, if you don't like the laws of this nation, work diligently to change them. But if you want to start a holy war to force all to believe as you do, you will be met with resistance in this land of the free, even from some of those who share your faith.

Bill Ayers does not a Movement make. And he did make a distinction -- which I do not accept -- between buildings and people. Even Ayers did not, in this Century, ever assert that those who directed war should be assassinated.

David -- There is no parallel, on the right or the left, to a mother consenting to have her child tortured and pulled apart, limb by limb. By condoning the heartless and heinous methods of partial birth abortion, the liberals in this country have, without question, created a culture of hate against unborn children.

Late term abortions, while rare, present the toughest issue for those of us who believe in women's right to choose.

At one end of the spectrum, abortion involving tiny groups of cells is an easy call for us, because any sense of human consciousness is simply not present. (The concept of the soul is a metaphysical and religious one, and the state has no role in making decision based on one theological view or another.) In such circumstances, the primacy of a woman's right to control what goes on in her own body certainly takes primacy.

The closer we come to term, the harder the call is. But the reality is that no one -- not doctors, not pregnant women -- take the decision to terminate lightly. Issues involving women's health and the quality of life of the fetus should it be born are agonizing ones.

The question is at what point, if any, should the government interpose its power to interfere with private choices of those who are pregnant. Libertarians and liberals tend to want to leave those decisions to the women.

Those who believe abortion is wrong -- at whatever stage of pregnancy -- are certainly free to make their arguments. In making their arguments, they may convince women who otherwise would choose an abortion to make a different choice. But, as a matter of common decency, these discussions should be accorded the dignity and gravity they warrant.

Those opposing abortion who wish to go further and have the government enforcement their opposition on those who disagree are entitled to make their argument. But they should be well aware of the gravity of having the government interfere with such private decisions.

And, finally, those who would engage in violent vigilantism because our democratic institutions have made decisions that protect the right to choose are arrogating to themselves a power that undercuts the very fabric of democratic society. Without democracy and the rule of law eminating from democratic institutions (which include the courts, whose members are selected by those who are elected), we will fall back to the brutality and chaos of the Dark Ages.

As Ben Franklin told a person inquiry what kind of government the founders fashion in 1987 In Philadelphia, he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." It is the responsibility of every American generation to keep it -- for themselves and for the next generation. When we condone actions like those of the man who murdered Dr. Tiller, we are rejecting our responsibilities.

The culture of hate that pro abortionists have whipped up is clearly and insanely visible in the mutilated faces and bodies of millions of babies. Go to this link and look at these faces (make sure you read the warning on the front page):

David --Tearing a baby apart is as brutal as it gets. How much further back can we go than the present level of partial birth abortion brutality? Also, the government has already insinuated itself into, and propagated, this religion of death called "abortion."

Shooting a doctor in front of his wife and friends in church because you hate womens' private health choices is brutal too.

Instead of fighting each other with rhetoric and bullets, we should work together to reduce the need for abortion. One way to do that is to provide medically accurate abstinence based comprehensive sex education to all public school teenagers. Sexually active high school students need to learn about the consequences of teen sexual behavior as well as how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to reduce the spread of STDs.

Go ahead, keep fomenting hate, Anon. It elicits truth from activists like Mr. Roeder, who turn out not to be pro-life after all, but only anti-abortion.

IMHO it would be much better if we all worked together to reduce the demand for abortion in this nation. We can start by educating public school students so they can learn how to prevent unplanned pregnancies rather than choosing to end them. Let's work to ensure abstinence based, medically accurate, comprehensive sex education is offered in all public schools. Sexually active high school students need to learn about the consequences of teen sexual behavior as well as how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to reduce the spread of STDs.

Just because it wasn't illegal to brutally murder these young lives doesn't mean he was required to.

He made an evil choice and you support that.

"It elicits truth from activists like Mr. Roeder, who turn out not to be pro-life after all, but only anti-abortion."

Not defending the guy but he is probably pro-life. From his perspective, he probably thinks more lives were saved by his actions.

"IMHO it would be much better if we all worked together to reduce the demand for abortion in this nation. We can start by educating public school students so they can learn how to prevent unplanned pregnancies rather than choosing to end them."

If you mean by telling them not to have sex until they're prepared to take the responsibility and telling them that an unborn child is a life worthy of protection, you'd be right.

But that's not what you mean.

"Let's work to ensure abstinence based, medically accurate, comprehensive sex education is offered in all public schools. Sexually active high school students need to learn about the consequences of teen sexual behavior as well as how to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to reduce the spread of STDs."

Would that accuracy include descriptions of unborn children at various stages and unhealthy behavior in gay population and statistical chance your partner is using their condom correctly and societal attitudes toward sexuality throughout the world and history?

Would that accuracy include descriptions of unborn children at various stages and unhealthy behavior in gay population and statistical chance your partner is using their condom correctly and societal attitudes toward sexuality throughout the world and history?

You've obviously never read the new curriculum. The answer to each question is "Yes, and then some" except for maybe the condom odds question. Teens don't learn to calculate condom usage odds in sex ed at MCPS. Instead they are taught the proper way to use condoms -- correctly and consistently -- and our young women are taught they can be assertive and insist their partner use one, thereby increasing the odds that condoms will be used. The CDC says even incorrect use of condoms offers some protection, but proper use is most effective.

If you mean by telling them not to have sex until they're prepared to take the responsibility and telling them that an unborn child is a life worthy of protection, you'd be right.

But that's not what you mean.

That's exactly what I mean when I say sex education needs to be "abstinence based." Telling teens to wait to become sexually active until they are prepared for the responsibilities of raising a child is exactly what should be taught. They should also be taught what the responsibilities of raising a child are, from earning enough money to buy diapers, food, formula, doctor visits, etc., to taking care of the 2AM feedings to the joys parenthood can bring.

But the abstinence message is only effective for about half of high school graduates. After careful analysis of some abstinence-only programs, we have learned that abstinence pledge programs have failure rates as high as 88% and some ab-only programs provide medically inaccurate information. That's no way to educate anyone.

But you're right, abstinence is not "all" I mean sex education should cover.

About half of our high school graduates are already sexually active. They need to learn how sexually active people prevent the spread of STDs and unplanned pregnancy, and that's the comprehensive part of sex education. Both parts are needed because we have both sexually active and abstinent teens. The success of the ABC (Abstinence, Be faithful, use Condoms) program in Africa points to the need for this multi-pronged approach to educating people about human sexuality to prevent the spread of AIDS, other STDs, and unplanned pregnancy.

he is probably pro-life. From his perspective, he probably thinks more lives were saved by his actions.

Sadly, Roeder was duped into thinking that his crime was justified by those who push the anti-abortion agenda down all our throats. Here's the 2005 Justice for All handbook, "Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue". I think you'll find the section on genocide might explain how Roeder was duped into believing that killing Dr. Tiller was a good idea.

Just because it wasn't illegal to brutally murder these young lives doesn't mean he was required to.

He made an evil choice and you support that.

You think helping women facing horrific circumstances is an evil choice and I disagree. I think Dr. Tiller was a brave man, who endured years of federally illegal attacks on his clinic that were never prosecuted. It's heartening to see our new Attorney General offer the federal protection at abortion clinics called for by the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) .

It's too bad Bush's DOJ was more interested in prosecuting Democrats for bogus "crimes" instead of prosecuting people like Roeder, who committed a federal offense each time he glued abortion clinic doors shut. Had Roemer been properly prosecuted by Bush's DOJ for his years of FACE violations, he might have been in jail where he belonged instead of in church shooting Dr. Tiller. But as usual, Bush left another mess for Obama to clean up.

ABSOLUTELY! For instance, in Montgomery County schools, they teach kids that homosexuality is innate. No credible medical organization in the country claims that homosexuality is innate, but that doesn't stop the Montgomery County schools....

"And, finally, those who would engage in violent vigilantism because our democratic institutions have made decisions that protect the right to choose are arrogating to themselves a power that undercuts the very fabric of democratic society. Without democracy and the rule of law eminating from democratic institutions (which include the courts, whose members are selected by those who are elected), we will fall back to the brutality and chaos of the Dark Ages."

This argument seems to be correct, David, but at what point does the behavior protected by a government become so heinous that protecting "democratic society" becomes a hollow gesture.

If the democratic society said it was OK to round up gays and put them in concentration camps, would violence against those who run these concentration camps be justified?

You should treasure Democrats. They are repairing the damages the Bushleaguers did to our economy and to our standing in the world. You want to know what trumped up charges were thrown at Democrats by Bush/Cheney/Gonsalez loyalists who think the Geneva Convention is quaint? Here are two that have resulted in release from prison of wrongly imprisoned Democrats:

Bogus crime #1:Ex-Governor of Alabama Is Ordered ReleasedDon Seligman, former governor of Alabama, was ordered released from prison on Thursday by a federal appeals court, pending his appeal of a bribery conviction that Democrats say resulted from a politically driven prosecution.

In its order, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, said Mr. Siegelman had raised “substantial questions” in his appeal of the case and could be released on bond from the federal prison in Oakdale, La., where he has served nine months of a seven-year sentence. The order did not say what those questions were, but his lawyers have argued for months that the bribery charge on which he was mainly convicted revolved around a transaction that differed little, if at all, from a standard political contribution.

Mr. Siegelman’s lawyers maintained that — as is standard in many white-collar crime cases — the veteran Democratic politician never should have been imprisoned in the first place while he appealed his conviction.

The three-judge panel in Chicago acted with unusual speed, ruling after oral arguments by Thompson's attorney and the U.S. attorney's office.

During 26 minutes of oral arguments, all three judges assailed the government's case, with Judge Diane Wood saying at one point that "the evidence is beyond thin."

During a news conference later Thursday, Doyle, a former state attorney general, said the three judges did an "extraordinary thing" by entering an order finding Thompson innocent and ordering her immediate release.

Decisions at that level of the federal judicial system usually take weeks or months after oral arguments.

Thompson, 57, will remain free on a signature bond until the appeals court issues its written decision.

Doyle said Thompson was prosecuted for "doing her job," was "an innocent woman who was used as a political football" and is entitled to her old job and lost pay...

"former governor of Alabama, was ordered released from prison on Thursday by a federal appeals court, pending his appeal of a bribery conviction that Democrats say resulted from a politically driven prosecution"

Democrats "say" stuff like that all the time. A court found this person guilty after looking at the evidence. Now, another court has overruled that decision and did not say why.

Democrats will "say" anything to score political points. That's why Obama owes George Bush an apology for all the things he said about Bush's fight against terrorism when Obama now has continued identical policies.

People like you, who defame our system of justice without cause are cancers on our democracy.

"Federal judges Thursday ruled that former state purchasing supervisor Georgia L. Thompson was wrongly convicted of making sure a state travel contract went to a firm linked to Gov. Jim Doyle's re-election campaign"

Laughable. I'm sure Bush and Cheney were plotting against the "state purchasing supervisor"in Georgia. Next, they'll attack the state comptroller in Nebraska.

Oh, I'm sure we'll all be laughing ourselves silly when "I don't recall" Alberto Gonzalez sits down in front of Congress again, or better yet in front of a judge and tells us everything he can't remember the Roving Architect and his White House bosses wanted done at DOJ to help get more Republicans elected. Of course there's an "explicit policy of the Department of Justice to avoid bringing voter-related cases during an election" year to avoid tipping close elections, but when you're trying to create a permanent GOP majority, well, some people act as if policies that get in the way become *quaint* and ignorable.

"Federal judges Thursday ruled that former state purchasing supervisor Georgia L. Thompson was wrongly convicted of making sure a state travel contract went to a firm linked to Gov. Jim Doyle's re-election campaign"

Laughable. I'm sure Bush and Cheney were plotting against the "state purchasing supervisor" in Georgia.

What's laughable is your reading inability, flash. The "state purchasing suspervisor's" name is Georgia L. Thompson and you can read up on her case here. This bogus criminal prosecution of a Democrat was carried out in Wisconsin because the GOP thought they could pick up a governorship there in 2006.

In 2006, the Democratic Governor of Wisconsin, Jim Doyle, ran for reelection against Mark Green. The GOP used the prosecution of Ms. Thompson to try to tar Governor Doyle, claiming Green would bring ethical reforms. GOP and their allies' ads linking Thompson and Doyle were used to divert attention from the Wisconsin Election Board's decision that GOP Candidate Green had to return $468,000 in campaign contributions because they were obtained in violatation of Wisconsin state election law.

A month after Doyle won reelection in 2006, the Bush DOJ carried out the unprecedented midterm firing of many US Attorneys and in the months after that we witnessed the resignations of the following Bush Administration appointees: -Attorney General Alberto Gonzales-Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty-Acting Associate Attorney General William W. Mercer-Chief of Staff for the Attorney General Kyle Sampson-Chief of Staff for the Deputy Attorney General Michael Elston-Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Michael A. Battle-the next Director of the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Bradley Schlozman-DOJ White House Liaison Monica Goodling

The rats deserted the sinking GOP ship. Poor Rove. All that work and all he's got to show for it is a permanent GOP minority. Glub glub glub.